Originally Posted by 3662forlife (Post 1311239)

Wow, from the 357 conference call today, Frontier Management told the EBoard on Tuesday that Frontier is going to furlough.

Originally Posted by TillerEnvy (Post 1311633)

3662 is an F9 pilot disguising himself as an RAH FO.

Originally Posted by Ronaldo (Post 1311903)

Nbecca:

Please enlighten us. I'm very curious about what information IBT releases early. If you're going to quote the one line from the LOA 67 lawsuit where IBT released a document already available on SEC-EDGAR, Google and Yahoo searches I'm going to laugh my a$$ off. Just because FAPA/RAH leadership was to embarrassed to release the documents requested in discovery, does not mean they are appropriately labeled "confidential".

If anything, IBT waits too long to release information, and signs NDAs that are too broad in scope.

Originally Posted by nbecca (Post 1312074)

It's not called "the LOA 67 lawsuit." LOA 67 is not at issue in any current litigation and I'm not referring to that situation.

Educate yourself, it's not my job.

Originally Posted by Hetman (Post 1311918)

He is weasel and a whiner, then.

Originally Posted by nbecca (Post 1312074)

It's not called "the LOA 67 lawsuit." LOA 67 is not at issue in any current litigation and I'm not referring to that situation.

Educate yourself, it's not my job.

Originally Posted by IA1125 (Post 1312675)

So, based on 3662’s and other’s posts, IBT fears a possible DFR suit if they don’t represent the Frontier Pilot’s interests in bidding the 190’s and maybe the Q’s, but they aren’t concerned at all about trying to put them out of work through the FAPAInvest / LOA 67 litigation?

It seems to me the litigation represents more of a threat of a DFR suit than allowing furloughed Frontier Pilots to bid the 190’s over native RAHer’s.

In fact, it seems the native RAHer’s could make a decent DFR claim based on a conflict of interest by the IBT in working to take their upgrades and bidding positions away from them and give them to Frontier Pilots.

Have any Frontier Pilots (IBT members or not) expressed an interest in flying the 190’s or Q’s? Or is the IBT charging ahead for the sole purpose of charging ahead? As in, is there anyone asking to have their interests in the 190’s and Q’s advanced or is it all in the IBT’s head?

Originally Posted by IA1125 (Post 1312675)

So, based on 3662’s and other’s posts, IBT fears a possible DFR suit if they don’t represent the Frontier Pilot’s interests in bidding the 190’s and maybe the Q’s, but they aren’t concerned at all about trying to put them out of work through the FAPAInvest / LOA 67 litigation?

It seems to me the litigation represents more of a threat of a DFR suit than allowing furloughed Frontier Pilots to bid the 190’s over native RAHer’s.

In fact, it seems the native RAHer’s could make a decent DFR claim based on a conflict of interest by the IBT in working to take their upgrades and bidding positions away from them and give them to Frontier Pilots.

Have any Frontier Pilots (IBT members or not) expressed an interest in flying the 190’s or Q’s? Or is the IBT charging ahead for the sole purpose of charging ahead? As in, is there anyone asking to have their interests in the 190’s and Q’s advanced or is it all in the IBT’s head?

Originally Posted by RJtrashPilot (Post 1312590)

I saw this and thought you'd like it since you're an official member of the party.

Originally Posted by sizzlechest (Post 1312806)

The vacancies are not "their upgrades" but open to everyone on the single seniority list from all companies. It is irrelevant whether a F9 pilot would bid it or not. It has to be made open to everyone on the single list.

Originally Posted by zoooropa (Post 1313979)

Now we have three 190's based in no-mans land and the IBT is tripping all over themselves to "represent" the Frontier pilots. You guys need to work on being a little more subtle.

Originally Posted by zoooropa (Post 1313979)

Interesting premiss, but factually inaccurate.

We still have two CBA's, with conflicting vacancy bidding procedures.

I think some of the IBT folks need to re-read Eischen's gift that keeps on giving.

I wonder why this wasn't such a big deal to the IBT when dozens of Q positions were being awarded? Now we have three 190's based in no-mans land and the IBT is tripping all over themselves to "represent" the Frontier pilots. You guys need to work on being a little more subtle.

With regard to the DFR, it is not a matter of IF, just WHEN.

" A labor organization which has been accorded exclusive recognition is the exclusive representative of the employees in the unit it represents and is entitled to act for, and negotiate collective bargaining agreements covering, all employees in the unit. An exclusive representative is responsible for representing the interests of all employees in the unit it represents without discrimination and without regard to labor organization membership."

and

"Majority opposition does not defeat the duty of fair representation; the duty exists to restrain the majority."

I could cut and paste a few more but I will wait until the time comes. This claim isn't ripe yet, but the IBT is blatantly attempting to cause harm, and "harm" is the only piece missing at this point.

Originally Posted by zoooropa (Post 1313979)

Interesting premiss, but factually inaccurate.

We still have two CBA's, with conflicting vacancy bidding procedures.

I think some of the IBT folks need to re-read Eischen's gift that keeps on giving.

I wonder why this wasn't such a big deal to the IBT when dozens of Q positions were being awarded? Now we have three 190's based in no-mans land and the IBT is tripping all over themselves to "represent" the Frontier pilots. You guys need to work on being a little more subtle.

With regard to the DFR, it is not a matter of IF, just WHEN.

" A labor organization which has been accorded exclusive recognition is the exclusive representative of the employees in the unit it represents and is entitled to act for, and negotiate collective bargaining agreements covering, all employees in the unit. An exclusive representative is responsible for representing the interests of all employees in the unit it represents without discrimination and without regard to labor organization membership."

and

"Majority opposition does not defeat the duty of fair representation; the duty exists to restrain the majority."

I could cut and paste a few more but I will wait until the time comes. This claim isn't ripe yet, but the IBT is blatantly attempting to cause harm, and "harm" is the only piece missing at this point.

Originally Posted by sizzlechest (Post 1314234)

My post wasn't about specific procedures in any CBA. It was that a vacancy was created and it needed to be made open to everyone based on whatever CBA rules there are.

Originally Posted by sizzlechest (Post 1314234)

Your assertion that the IBT is not operating properly where DFR is concerned is your opinion alone.

Originally Posted by sizzlechest (Post 1314234)

the LOA67 lawsuit is about operating outside union ground and side deals. that is in the interest of the covered employees.

Originally Posted by sizzlechest (Post 1314234)

Just because you do not like it doesn't mean it's not right. The IBT has been looking at both the 190 and Q vacancies, it's not like they came up with it last week.

Originally Posted by Ronaldo (Post 1314272)

The company claiming that the owned entity was losing money does not magically allow it to treat with anyone other than the representative union.

Originally Posted by nbecca (Post 1314280)

If there is "a vacancy that was created and it needed to be made open to everyone", exactly HOW would those vacancies be filled by a pilot operating under a separate CBA, when neither party's CBA addresses the issue?

--The vacancies can be filled in accordance with IMSL seniority, they are outside the fence.

How exactly does a pilot move from one Company to another?

--They bid and get awarded a vacancy. they then come in for indoc and all the paperwork and get an ID.


There are NO "CBA rules" regarding this issue in either CBA.

--Does there have to be? the 190s operate on the YX certificate. the legacy-CHQ CBA would voer that I suppose. This would be like the handful of guys that came off the furlough street to F9.

Eischen stated, in writing, once that the IBT had the cart in front of the horse and later that the cart was getting even further ahead of the horse, based on IBT's actions.

What work rules would a Frontier pilot operate under if they flew the 190?
CHQ CBA or Frontier CBA?

--CHQ CBA

What would be their bidding position, for monthly bids and for vacation?

--IMSL seniority. The vacation would be from whatever is left over as that bid closed. Maybe they would allow some extra weeks for whoever came over.

Would there have to be a rerun of a monthly bid or of the vacation bid?

--Dunno

What would be their longevity and pay?

--Whatever they have for longevity and the CHQ pay scales.

Are they seat locked?

--I imagine they would IAW with the CHQ CBA.

May they return to Frontier when displaced or when there are vacancies at Frontier?

--Good question.

Into what seniority position would they return? IMSL or original Frontier seniority?

--See above. The seniority would be IMSl I bet.

What would the IBT's grievance be based on? A CBA violation? Of which CBA?

--I am not the EBoard or a lawyer so i do not know.

You can't grieve the Eischen award and Eischen no longer has jurisdiction over the award.



Not so much really. It is many people's opinions, including well paid Attorneys at both Companies and within the Frontier pilot group.

--Still opinions. I did not know that you were posting on behalf of "many people's opinions, including well-paid Attorneys at both Companies and within the Frontier pilot group." I imagine IBT's well-paid lawyers and members of the legacy pilot group see it differently.

More important, as previously mentioned, Frontier's FO's unemployment benefit is greater than a RAH FO's pay. What is their motivation to fly a shiny commuter?

--Health insurance? Get outta the house? Not to sponge off unemployment? They love to fly and it shows? I don't know what any particular person's reasons would be.

Most of Frontier's FO's already have at least 1,000 turbine PIC (hiring mins and all that), so they don't need to step way back to get that time.

--That's cool too...

Surely, you jest. There is only one party that stands to gain in the litigation, the IBT - not the RAH pilots - just the IBT

--Don't call me Shirley! ;) It's not the IBT but, unions in general, that benefit from something like this. FAPA may have made some deal but they continue to edit it after the fact and intentionally covered their actions from the IBT after the vote... they are not an entity authorized to bargain with the company and they did and continue to do so.


I doubt that, but if they have been considering the issue for awhile, they are not pursuing the matter to benefit any Frontier pilot. The sole purpose is to muddy the waters on the SLI, IMSL, Separation and Representation issues.

--So you know what is going on inside their heads? Like i said, whether or not a F9 pilot takes it is moot. It was not made available in any case. What waters are there to muddy? We have STS. We have a SLI. We have RJET. It's not a case of ownership. We are all the craft and class of pilot.

Shouldn't the EBoard be focused on the 4 articles they've been attempting to negotiate for a couple of years and stop all the ancillary Bull****?

--That is the job of the NC, not EBoard. In fact, the EBoard specifically removed itself from any meetings where CBA type negotiations/talk were taking place with management. Single point of contact and all.

I mean, it took them a year to come up with the "never before heard of practice" of "linkage" in negotiations. That's the norm, it's not a new concept and yet the IBT had never thought of, or tried, that philosophy going back to 2003?

And that "linkage" epiphany took a year even with the assessment for a full time, "Highly experienced Attorney" and CM's vast experience "over the past 25 years" or so?

--{shrug}

How long are the terms of the current EBoard?

--I think 2 years. there is an opening now because one person had family things that took priority. Throw your name in the hat if you like.

Is everyone at RAH still happy with the IBT and all the support they are getting from National? Wasn't the battle cry from Las Vegas something like, "By all available means?"

--I think it was something like that. I didn't expect anything to happen overnight and I am sure that people interpreted that to mean "guns blazing" or something. I imagine that National will support us continually and they have been appearing in-person at our mediation sessions. I would guess not everyone but I am not speaking for everyone. just my opinion is all. i think people expect to have magic things happen and that IBT or national has some magic wand but they do not. It's the RLA, the Mediator's schedule and the lack of action by the NMB. It's hard to do much when NMB tells you to mind your own business and you cannot self-help. So we continue to work and subsidize F9 operations. Sure, some 170s would have been parked along with 190s but BB would have found something to do with them just like he did with the Frontier-I 170s in 2007-2008. if that would have triggered a furlough then that's the way it is. As it looks now, that would not have been a super-long furlough, if any, since we cannot fill classes now. Maybe BB would have continued to run the old midwest network... maybe not. the point is, nobody know what would have happened.

UTU did a heck of a job for the Lynx pilots, even though they hadn't collected beans in dues. Food for thought, as long as the IBT doesn't disown you for treasonous behavior.

--The bylaws are bylaws. i have no idea about the UTU and what they did or did not do. of course, they probably were not dealing with the same whole situation as IBT is/was.

Originally Posted by nbecca (Post 1314345)

LOA 67 was negotiated between Frontier Airlines and the Frontier Airline Pilots Association when FAPA was the legal representative union.

--But it has been amended outside of the proper representation and intentional steps were made to cloud this fact (and others) to prevent the IBT from doing what it is authorized to. Maybe the time to vote on it was made so short because BB and F9 knew they had little time and didn't want IBT to stop it? isn't that why they tried to interfere with the representation elections and were shot down?

LOA 67 was ratified by the members of the Frontier Airline Pilots Association when FAPA was the legal representative union.

LOA 67 was the primary stimulus in the process of obtaining concessions from RAH/Frontier stakeholders/vendors. The stakeholders/vendors followed the pilot's lead on concessions.

Without concessions from the pilots and other stakeholders/vendors, Frontier would, more than likely, have struggled to survive.

Those concessions, from the pilots and the stakeholders/vendors allowed Frontier to hold down their CASM, ex-fuel, until the little jets drove the CASM up.

--When a little jet does an ABQ turn or COS turn with less than 20 people, yeah, it will drive things up. Who's responsible for deciding the routes for the little jets? Who chose to bid EAS work that was a loser revenue-wise? who had complete control over profitability of little jets?

If the IBT prevails, the Company loses XXMM in concessions from the pilots and possibly from some stakeholders/vendors, that would have a negative affect on the viability of Frontier.

--Then it means that it was illegal, no? Should illegalities be overlooked and concessions remain? Doesn't concessions have an impact on negotiations in the future for your airline's CBA or the CBA of another airline?

So, spout off all you want about the IBT's desire to legally represent all parties to the SLI ("we are one?") and avoid a DFR suit.

--Roger

The IBT's "stated" desire is to represent the Frontier pilots all the way down to bidding the 190's, but the truth of the matter is, the IBT is trying to overturn a legally ratified agreement between Frontier and their pilots.

--Apparently, the legality is a point in contention here.

If successful, it will cause harm to the Frontier pilot group.

--But the pilot group does not control how the airline operates or what it charges. They only fly the plane from A to B according to the rules. Managment is responsible for the business plans and profitability and whatever agreements were made with the associated stakeholders.

The Frontier pilots wanted this LOA, the Company (Frontier) wanted this LOA and it was agreed to in a completely legal manner.

--See above.

Who is the IBT to come in, after the fact, to "represent" the Frontier pilots (in the form of a lawsuit) against their wishes in a manner that will cause harm to the pilot group they are so "interested in representing?"

--The elected representive solely responsible for collective bargaining as an agent to the pilot group. They are responsible to ensure things are done ethically and legally IAW laws and bylaws for the represented parties on the single-seniority list. Don't try to convince anyone that it wasn't done hastily with the intention of avoiding proper IBT involvement. i know you have seen the evidence entered right there in black and white. try to tell me that it was all on the "up and up"...

Remember, RAH had nowhere to place the 190's except at Frontier (they would have been parked or sold) and RAH would have parked many more 170's without being able to operate them in the service of Frontier.

--Then so be it. Sheet happens. Management makes these decisions, not the pilots. Who knows if there would have been a different opportunity to open up then and nothing would have happened. Maybe the casino work would have come around sooner. The point is, nobody knows for sure but can only guess.

The fact that they were able to place them at Frontier saved native RAH pilots from furlough.

--That's great and all but see above. it's no wonder F9 pilots think they are better than the RAHBros... :rolleyes:

You're welcome.

--Pffffft! "Surely you jest"!

Originally Posted by sizzlechest (Post 1314234)

The IBT has been looking at both the 190 and Q vacancies, it's not like they came up with it last week.

Originally Posted by Ronaldo (Post 1314272)

Not sure how this constitutes an DFR lawsuit. IBT negotiating to fill vacancies (growth) not covered under the Eischen award, with bids from all pilots in the single class (and IMSL) seems to be fair representation.

Originally Posted by sizzlechest (Post 1315279)

How exactly does a pilot move from one Company to another?

--They bid and get awarded a vacancy. they then come in for indoc and all the paperwork and get an ID.

You REALLY think it’s just that easy?

There are NO "CBA rules" regarding this issue in either CBA.

--Does there have to be? the 190s operate on the YX certificate. the legacy-CHQ CBA would voer that I suppose. This would be like the handful of guys that came off the furlough street to F9.

Two separate CBA’s.

What would be their bidding position, for monthly bids and for vacation?

--IMSL seniority. The vacation would be from whatever is left over as that bid closed. Maybe they would allow some extra weeks for whoever came over.

Where does it say that? You’re just making stuff up based on absolutely no legal knowledge, experience or education on the issues.

Would there have to be a rerun of a monthly bid or of the vacation bid?

--Dunno

THAT’s the answer you should have started with and saved yourself the time of imagining the processes.

What would be their longevity and pay?

--Whatever they have for longevity and the CHQ pay scales.

Like the MEA guys longevity?

Are they seat locked?

--I imagine they would IAW with the CHQ CBA.

You “imagine?” Now you have complete credibility.

May they return to Frontier when displaced or when there are vacancies at Frontier?

--Good question.

Thank you. The other questions are good questions as well. You just don’t know the answer, so you made stuff up. In fact, no one knows the answers to many of these questions.


Give it up dude, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Have you heard that saying, “It is better to be thought a foll, than open your mouth and prove it?” Words to live by.

Originally Posted by nbecca (Post 1316101)

..........

Originally Posted by zoooropa (Post 1315464)

RAH announced a new CPA for 34 Q400's back in May. This agreement created a huge amount of potential new upgrades for legacy RAH pilots. Additionally, some of the new Q flying is occurring in a rather large legacy F9 domicile known as Denver. For some strange reason, seven months have passed and not one word was spoken between the IBT and F9 management regarding that vacancy bid. Now we have three orphaned 190's, based out in no-mans-land and all of the sudden the IBT is playing the role of hero.



You are skipping a bunch of words in the windfall known as the Eischen Award

"In the event that the NMB finds a single transportation system and then certifies a single bargaining representative for the system-wide craft or class of pilots, applicable CBAs will remain applicable, in accordance with their terms, until consolidated or otherwise modified by
valid mutual agreement between the affected single carrier and a certified single pilot craft or class bargaining representative, if any. There appears to be consensus that the RAH/IBT and Frontier/FAPA collective bargaining agreements remain applicable to the pilot craft and class of those respective properties and that there is no CBA applicable to the UTU-represented pilot craft or class. RAH, ALPA, and perhaps some of the other Parties, continue to dispute whether,
or to what extent, the terms and conditions of the ALPA/Midwest CBA retain vitality, and upon whom that particular Agreement is binding and enforceable. However, as noted supra, the contested legal, contractual and administrative issues in that particular dispute are beyond the
proper reach of the jurisdiction and authority granted me under the terms of the DRA that governs this seniority list integration proceeding."

In other words, the "fence" is meaningless with regard to the 190's and Q's at this point.

Since we are refreshing everyone's memory here, I will add a few more quotes from The Award..


Page 43

"The main reason we took the leap in to the brand business was precisely because we did not see any growth opportunities for RJ flying with our major airline partners. In fact, we feel there is a much greater risk that contracts will not be renewed as the requirement for RJ, especially 50-seat aircraft, is shrinking. . . Had we not made the acquisitions we did last year, we would not have 15 E-190s in operation; we would not have a home for 16 E-170s or a home for 12 small RJs we are flying in Milwaukee. Add all that up and we would have 43 fewer aircraft in service at Republic. You take those 43 aircraft out of the picture and we would have had to furlough more than 1,300 Republic employees . . ."

and one of my favorites on page 33 (I still can't figure out who wrote the opinion, as it doesn't match the IMSL in any way, shape, or form)

"The Frontier acquisition now provides the regional jet pilots something of major value to any commercial pilot: a "road less traveled" to the "holy grail": the higher pay and benefits, enhanced life style, better
working conditions and enhanced prestige of a mainline carrier Captain position."

Bottom line, I ask the following question to sizzle and tiller and nbecca and 3662 and any professional pilot on this message board...

When Frontier separates next year, do you support the divestiture in the interest of "labor" or do you fight the sale in an effort to destroy something that you almost had but never really attained?

The IBT is currently suing my employer under the pretense that the RLA needs to be defended and pattern bargaining needs to prevail. Meanwhile, the IBT is undermining my employer's efforts in creating an independent, profitable entity.

You can't claim to defend higher paying jobs while simultaneously attempting to destroy higher paying jobs.

Which leads me to the inevitable DFR lawsuit...

Originally Posted by sizzlechest (Post 1316223)

who's the "foll" now. haha :rolleyes: